The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

In my story from the current issue of Forbes, I lay a lot of the blame for the slow (and, honestly, negative) sales growth of Gardasil at the feet of politicians and drug company marketing gaffes. But john2011, one of the smartest regular commenters on this blog, blames a different culprit: the internet.

John writes:

In the old days the cost of distributing content was very high, and substantial editing occurred by those who owned the means of distribution. The internet has provided a podium to just about anyone who wants one. For the most part this is a good thing.

I think that where the problems have come in are twofold. The first is that equality of access to a podium creates the illusion that all opinions are equally well-informed. Those whose last science class was high school biology feel qualified to go toe to toe with those who have spent their adult lives studying the issue in question. And most of the public does not understand science well enough to recognize the errors made by those who want to debate the finer points of toxicology and pharmacology without knowing the difference between an antibody and a T-cell.

I think the second is that the anonymity of internet discussions creates an environment in which we do not have to look each other in the eye, listen to one another, and at least superficially treat each other with respect. In any disagreement on the internet, the argument of first resort is to accuse your opponent of being a paid shill, of having undeclared conflicts of interest, or to make unsubstantiated attacks on the credibility of any study that is cited in rebuttal of one’s position.

In face to face interactions, we are required to at least pretend to respect each other, to listen to each other with an open mind, and to not casually dismiss the expertise of anyone who disagrees with us. I believe this shapes a much more thoughtful exchange of information.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry has discredited itself to a large degree. But I think the bigger problem is that we are becoming a nation that no longer lets our opinions be formed by facts. In multiple spheres of debate, we simply grasp onto any excuse to dismiss the credibility of facts that are inconvenient to our current point of view.

Can the drug industry thrive in the Internet age? People tend to talk a lot about the regulatory issues related to the net, to Facebook and Twitter. But what about the question of whether people really can filter all this information while making medical decisions?